From 4a28816e798187ea25989e1bc16970684e711440 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mark Kettenis Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:07:58 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] * amd64-tdep.c (amd64_frame_cache): Fix comment. --- gdb/ChangeLog | 4 ++++ gdb/amd64-tdep.c | 13 ++++++------- 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/gdb/ChangeLog b/gdb/ChangeLog index 7a09b8c4f8f..749bec1d5e8 100644 --- a/gdb/ChangeLog +++ b/gdb/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +2004-02-28 Mark Kettenis + + * amd64-tdep.c (amd64_frame_cache): Fix comment. + 2004-02-28 Andrew Cagney * utils.c: Use "", instead of <>, to include readline. diff --git a/gdb/amd64-tdep.c b/gdb/amd64-tdep.c index 46ee806f6be..0e446682fe8 100644 --- a/gdb/amd64-tdep.c +++ b/gdb/amd64-tdep.c @@ -790,13 +790,12 @@ amd64_frame_cache (struct frame_info *next_frame, void **this_cache) if (cache->frameless_p) { - /* We didn't find a valid frame, which means that CACHE->base - currently holds the frame pointer for our calling frame. If - we're at the start of a function, or somewhere half-way its - prologue, the function's frame probably hasn't been fully - setup yet. Try to reconstruct the base address for the stack - frame by looking at the stack pointer. For truly "frameless" - functions this might work too. */ + /* We didn't find a valid frame. If we're at the start of a + function, or somewhere half-way its prologue, the function's + frame probably hasn't been fully setup yet. Try to + reconstruct the base address for the stack frame by looking + at the stack pointer. For truly "frameless" functions this + might work too. */ frame_unwind_register (next_frame, AMD64_RSP_REGNUM, buf); cache->base = extract_unsigned_integer (buf, 8) + cache->sp_offset; -- 2.30.2